COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Studies related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were frequently published as pre-prints prior to undergoing peer-review. However, several publications were later retracted due to ethical concerns or study misconduct. Although these studies have been retracted, the availability of their corresponding pre-prints has never been formally investigated, and may result in the spread of misinformation if they are being used to inform decision-making.

Methods

Our objective was to conduct a systematic survey of retracted COVID-19 publications listed on the Retraction Watch database as of August 15th, 2021. We assessed the availability of corresponding pre-prints for retracted publications, and documented the number of citations and online views.

Results

Our study included 140 retracted COVID-19 publications, and we could not retrieve corresponding pre-prints for 132 retracted publications in our study (94%). Although we were unable to find the majority of pre-prints, they had already been disseminated, with a maximal citation count of 593 and Altmetric score of 558,928.

Conclusion

While it is reassuring that most corresponding pre-prints could not be retrieved, our study highlights the need for online platforms and journals to employ quality assurance methods to prevent the spread of misinformation through citation of retracted papers.

Related collections

Most cited references 31

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses.

Matthew E. Falagas, Eleni Pitsouni, George Malietzis … (2008)

The evolution of the electronic age has led to the development of numerous medical databases on the World Wide Web, offering search facilities on a particular subject and the ability to perform citation analysis. We compared the content coverage and practical utility of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The official Web pages of the databases were used to extract information on the range of journals covered, search facilities and restrictions, and update frequency. We used the example of a keyword search to evaluate the usefulness of these databases in biomedical information retrieval and a specific published article to evaluate their utility in performing citation analysis. All databases were practical in use and offered numerous search facilities. PubMed and Google Scholar are accessed for free. The keyword search with PubMed offers optimal update frequency and includes online early articles; other databases can rate articles by number of citations, as an index of importance. For citation analysis, Scopus offers about 20% more coverage than Web of Science, whereas Google Scholar offers results of inconsistent accuracy. PubMed remains an optimal tool in biomedical electronic research. Scopus covers a wider journal range, of help both in keyword searching and citation analysis, but it is currently limited to recent articles (published after 1995) compared with Web of Science. Google Scholar, as for the Web in general, can help in the retrieval of even the most obscure information but its use is marred by inadequate, less often updated, citation information.

0 comments Cited 671 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The COVID-19 social media infodemic

Matteo Cinelli, Walter Quattrociocchi, Alessandro Galeazzi … (2020)

We address the diffusion of information about the COVID-19 with a massive data analysis on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit and Gab. We analyze engagement and interest in the COVID-19 topic and provide a differential assessment on the evolution of the discourse on a global scale for each platform and their users. We fit information spreading with epidemic models characterizing the basic reproduction number \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$R_0$$\end{document} R 0 for each social media platform. Moreover, we identify information spreading from questionable sources, finding different volumes of misinformation in each platform. However, information from both reliable and questionable sources do not present different spreading patterns. Finally, we provide platform-dependent numerical estimates of rumors’ amplification.

0 comments Cited 509 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

S Ceci, W M Williams (2011)

Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.

0 comments Cited 318 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Heliyon

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Heliyon

Title: Heliyon

Publisher: Published by Elsevier Ltd.

ISSN (Electronic): 2405-8440

Publication date PMC-release: 3 April 2023

Publication date (Electronic): 3 April 2023

Electronic Location Identifier: e15184

Affiliations

[a ]Ancaster High School, Ancaster, ON, Canada

[b ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

[c ]Biostatistics Unit, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton ON, Canada

[d ]Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

[e ]Health Research Methodology Graduate Program, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Author notes

[∗ ]Corresponding author. St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Biostatistics Unit, 3rd. Floor, Martha Wing, Room H-325, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton ON L8N 4A6, Canada,

Article

Publisher Item ID: S2405-8440(23)02391-5 Publisher ID: e15184

DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15184

PMC ID: 10069084

PubMed ID: 37035368

SO-VID: c35a101e-d4c4-4913-af2e-360f035c1e3b

License:

Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

History

Date received : 8 December 2022

Date revision received : 27 March 2023

Date accepted : 29 March 2023

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 2

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 4,528

See all reference authors

COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 31

Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses.

The COVID-19 social media infodemic

Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 473

Cited by 2

Most referenced authors 4,528